Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
on Friday September 11, 2009 @12:04PM
from the don't-tase-me-bro dept.

Soychemist writes "Walk into the Taser headquarters in Scottsdale, Arizona and it may seem like you are on an episode of Get Smart. The foyer is like a fortress, with giant steel doors and biometric identification systems. Inside, factory workers meticulously assemble the less-lethal weapons by hand and then put them through a battery of safety tests. In addition to making pistol-shaped devices, the company also produces the electronic equivalent of a claymore mine, which hurls dozens of electrified needles at the push of a button and electronic shotgun cartridges that deliver a powerful jolt."

I knew a correctional officer who frequently used stun guns [howstuffworks.com] on rowdy inmates. They called it "The funky Chicken" because of the inmates' jerks and spasms which were often so severe that they would shit and piss on themselves.

Stun guns != tasers, but keep that in mind the next time you mess with authority.

"And here we have the Legal Department, which pursues county coroners who suggest that our device could possibly interfere with heart rhythms. That's Doug over there, yes, the one with the horns and the tail. He came to us after a stint with Adolf Hitler. He's responsible for, ah, marketing."

Yeah, because when they used guns exclusively it was commonplace to shoot someone in cuffs for struggling against being put in a police car, or shoot someone, yell "get up" at them, then shoot them again cause they can't.

Using Tasers instead of guns is a good thing, but they are constantly being used in situations which would not warrent the use of a firearm, and Taser International's own training and marketing material is a least partly to blame.

is a perfectly sensible idea; there are some use cases for firearms where fewer deaths and injuries would result if tasers were used instead (obviously, there are situations where they don't work too). The problem occurs when they get used for situations which would previously have been resolved using force less lethal than a taser, or, in a frighteningly large number of cases, situations which would previously have been quite easily resolved with no force at all.

I see what you did there, you changed the words. Tasers are called less than lethal not non-lethal.

But I do agree with you they are over used. Personally I think that the officer should draw their gun when they would normally be allowed to tase the perp. If that doesn't work and its save to switch from a gun to a taser they should then do so.

The truth of the matter is simply that the perps know you (as a police officer) can not shoot them unless they are offering deadly force against you or another. It is however legal to taze them if they offer resistance. If you pull your pistol on a perp and he knows you have no right to shoot, he will laugh and keep doing what he is doing, pull a tazer and he will change his mind. It is legal for a police officer to taze some one anytime they have a reason to place their hands on them, this IMHO is inapprop

They were originally intended to be used in cases where a gun would have been used.

No they weren't. Guns (deadly force) can't be used unless the life of the police officer or an innocent bystander is in imminent risk. No sane police officer whose life is seconds away from ending is going to reach for his TASER. The TASER is useless against multiple opponents, is useless against someone hopped up on drugs or with certain mental illnesses, only gives you one shot and has an limited range compared to handguns. In a scenario where his life or the life of another is in mortal danger the smart police officer is going to draw his firearm and squeeze the trigger as many times as are required to end the threat.

TASERs were intended as a replacement for the police baton. They were not intended as a replacement for deadly force. The use of deadly force (firearm, knife, claymore, etc) has an entirely different set of standards that need to be met than does regular force (fist, taser, mace, pepper spray, etc). Deadly force can only be used under specific circumstances, generally to save the life of the officer or another. Regular force can be used to affect an arrest, halt the commission of non-lethal crimes, halt the escape of a suspect, defend against the use of non-deadly force, etc.

These devices would never be used against people in the manner they now are in a truly free society.

That part I'd give you. It seems that there are quite a few incidents wherein police officers have reached for their TASER rather than reaching for their deescalation skills. I don't think you can blame this on the tool though -- you have to blame it on the operator. These same personalities would probably have wielded the police baton in the same inappropriate manner.

Odd, I get to argue in favor of clubbing people, this is a rare (and somewhat amusing) day.

I'd actually prefer it if police clubbed people to subdue them, rather than tase(?) them, for a couple reasons. Police need to think twice before hopping in with a club, a TASER is somewhat different in that it is a point and click weapon (branded as being as safe as throwing twinkies at whoever is being arrested), it lowers the threshold of use. It makes it easier to use force, and opens it up to be used in places where not even a baton would be used. While it might be a bit safer to the person its being used on than a club, this might be outweighed by the fact that it is used more than the baton would have been used, for situations requiring much less escalation.

Call me a namby pamby liberal who likes his rights, but officer safety is only HALF of the equation, being that the people their stopping, no matter how much they resist, are innocent and and have equal rights, to the officer until it is found otherwise in a court of law. Also the bar to "resisting" or "stuggling" is far more cloudy than we'd like to realize. Hell, even watch Cops, which is nothing but friendly to the police, and see how resisting can be very nonresiting looking, if it is convenient. Hell, struggling against strange restraint positions is resisting somehow, even though I'm guessing anyone would struggle with some of them. Its a high stress enviroment for cops and the people they are arresting (guilty or not), but somehow we expect everyone to turn into a limp bean bag when an attacker puts out arms behind our back as a restraint. As a person who has been wrongfully arrested, it would be a miracle of someone DIDN'T struggle. Trying being surprised and thrown against a wall by someone who just screams "POLICE!" at you, and not trying to struggle a bit.

No, I'm not anti-police, but I realize that police are humans, and thus are not infallible, and their ranks contain a fair share of bad eggs. And also not all crooks are violent sociopaths out to kill the police and innocent bystanders. Hell, not all people who are arrested are violent, much less actually guilty of a crime. Also not all cases of "resisting" are actually people actively being antagonistic to the police, sometimes its just an expedient way of jailing them for otherwise banal things, or a way to escalate charges, or a way to vent some frustration of the person being arrested. Yes, this isn't the majority of times, but even in the minority of times when the police go too far, we should protect the innocent and others from the police.

We also don't know how lethal the TASER actually is. We can't really judge whether it is more or less lethal than the common baton. We really shouldn't be saying it is equal to a baton when we have no proof of it, and what proof that might exist is being actively blocked by the corporation whose job it is to sell the device. This corporation is also saying that no one has EVER died from a TASER, just some mythical pre-existing condition that mysteriously appeared at the same time the TASER was developed and sold to law enforcement.

The other thing is that the Taser works a longer range than the baton, and so doesn't require the officer to put himself into the suspects range. It subdues a suspect faster than the use of a baton, and doesn't have that "Rodney King" stigma attached (though it's rapidly gaining its own level of infamy).

Just like a club is less lethal than a sword... but it still does 1d6.

I think the key here is that the "less lethal" concept means to many that "you can use it more than a gun and get away with it" which is a problem because in a small subset of its use it does become lethal or causes situations that cause death when normal restraining methods would have sufficed without incident.

Just like a club is less lethal than a sword... but it still does 1d6.

Personally, most taser incidents where the perp is not threatening the officer's safety should be replaced with a rap on the calf or elsewhere with a smaller billy-club. Still hurts, without resorting to electric shocks. Less likely to die from 'mysterious circumstances' from a sharp rap on a muscle than from electrical pulses (and less of an uproar, probably, when they do).

Right, but that should be reserved for times when otherwise an officer would use a firearm to subdue the perp. Tasers have expanded their role to include instances where the officer would have just hit the perp and been rough with them.

There are some times when a taser can fit between these two places (some massive dude high on PCP is threatening to pummel a cop with his fists, I'm not going to require the cop to subdue him physically if he has access to a stun gun), but in general, I think that most of y

Tasers have expanded their role to include instances where the officer would have just hit the perp and been rough with them.

Actually, they've expanded their role to include instances where the officer just wants to punish someone when they don't do as they're told, like when they can't move because they're lying on the ground with a broken back. [alternet.org]

"They"... Why do you just through all Police under the same buss with some idiot who needs to be charged with assault and battery?Just because some one dose something like this means all police think they can and should do it?

Well, obviously not a single cop or anyone working in any position in law enforcement there did ONE DAMN THING about that illegal immoral injustice.

So yes, every last single cop in that police department is morally bankrupt and clearly has NO objections to assault and battery of a 19 year old kid with a broken back, else they would have, I don't know, objected instead of providing excuses.

I mean, if you have proof otherwise, then please put it forward.My proof however is their very actions, during and after what happened to the kid.

I'm not sure why you're such a fan of officers beating people with clubs or their fists. I have a friend who recently became a police officer, and as part of their training they get tased. It can kill, yes, but the chances are pretty slim. Frankly, if I'm going to be subdued by a police officer, I'm going with the taser every time. I don't have numbers (does anybody?), but I'd guess the chances of lasting harm from being hit with an expandable baton are significantly higher than from being hit with a taser. That's why it's ridiculous to confine it only to circumstances where otherwise a gun would be used. Have they been overused? Yes, but so have clubs and fists. Bad or scared cops will will abuse whatever weapons you put into their hands.

Right, but that should be reserved for times when otherwise an officer would use a firearm to subdue the perp

Firearms are not used to subdue perps. Firearms are used to end a threat to the life of the officer or another innocent person. The only occasion I'm aware of where firearms are allowed to be used to "subdue" people is in the case of a prison guard shooting a prison escapee. Your regular beat cop is not allowed to use his firearm to "subdue" someone. He's only allowed to use it to save his own life or the life of another.

Tasers have expanded their role to include instances where the officer would have just hit the perp and been rough with them.

That's exactly what they are intended for. Situations where non-deadly force would have been used. Their role hasn't been expanded at all. What's been expanded is the willingness of officers to use force during inappropriate times. Tasing someone in handcuffs just because he said something nasty to the Judge is no more appropriate than hitting him would have been.

but in general, I think that most of your taser stories ('don't tase me bro' guy or the naked wizard) would be better handled by just cuffing them roughly.

Why? So you run the risk of injuring two people (the officer and the perp) instead of one? How is that better? Have you ever been trained in restraint techniques? I have been -- as part of my employment at a mental health facility. It's not that easy to take someone down without injuring them or yourself. How is injuring the perp while subduing him with your hands any better than injuring him while subduing him with a Taser?

Of course, when you have a dude covered in kerosene charging you with a lighter, a taser seems like a better alternative than an officer dying or needing to shoot the guy in the kneecaps.

You wouldn't shoot for the kneecaps in such a situation. You'd shoot center of mass. Shooting someone's legs/kneecaps/hand-holding-the-knife is a Hollywood myth. It's just too hard to pull off in the real world. If you shoot a 2" group with a handgun at the range with paper targets you are going to shoot a 10" group when being charged by some nutjob intent on ending your life. That's what happens when you get an adrenaline dump and your fine motor skills go to hell. That's why police officers are trained to shoot center of mass.

Actually, it's essentially pain. True, it's not exactly same, but neither are burns and cuts. The muscular interference effect is largely unimportant as it tends to be both short lived (i.e. duration of shock) and fairly localized. If someone is high PCP and charging you, zapping them on the arm isn't really going to do much better than a billy club. Unless, of course, you keep the current on until they're dead, but that kinda misses the point, doesn't it?

If the money spent on tazers and tazer training (and defending tazer death suits) was instead spent on billy clubs and (here's the important part:) close combat classes, officers would generally be better off.

Right, because when someone is charging a cop, it's much better they be allowed to get up close and personal before the cop can begin to disable them with a club than it is to have the cop shoot them at a distance with a taser.

Yeah, I'll mention that to a cop I know. She's 5'-2". I'm sure she'd much rather get into a physical fight with PCP-stoked guy twice her size than simply drop him, alive, like a sack of potatos. Though it sounds like you'd prefer she used a firearm in that situation.

Yet at the same time, take a look at the Texas officer who tazed the 80+ grandmother, He was a very large man she was a crazed little old lady, she was trying to attack him, trying to run out into the highway, according to the video it even looked like she was attempting to grab his pistol. He was faced with a choice of tackling her and most likely breaking something like an arm, hip, or ribs, etc. or as you suggest hitting this lady with his baton (~24" steel pipe) or just tazing her which provided just th

Less Lethal...Just like a club is less lethal than a sword... but it still does 1d6.

Yep - that's why they started calling them "less-lethal" weapons rather than "non-lethal" weapons...though if we're doing dnd references, I'd argue that many of them do subdural damage and something more like a 1d2 with a 5% chance of causing death.

What exactly is the intended non-lethal purpose of such a thing?

What lethal uses did you have in mind, exactly? It doesn't sound very effective at killing people. As a less-lethal weapon, however, it sounds useful for crowd control, remote perimeters where you'd rather capture than kill, ambushs where you'd rather capture than kill...any number of things.

That would work, but unless it was a coin that you'd personally stolen from a dragon's horde, covered in eldritch runes of unfathomable power*, it'd be kind of lame.
*Now available for $59.99 at ThinkGeek!

In addition to what others have said (crowds), it would probably be more effective (maybe cheaper depending on bulk discounts) when it comes to automated defense than attaching a taser to a couple motors and using a computer to track a target.

I'd like to see laws allowing citizens to carry tazers and use them against anyone presenting a life-threat, including police officers.

Uh...citizens are allowed to carry tasers. It's regulated, just like the carrying of any weapon is, but it's not like only police officers can have them. And as it turns out, the law does allow you to use them against someone illegally threatening you, including police officers. You'll have a heck of a time proving that attacking a cop was justified, but that's true of any assault on a police officer. If you're trying to say that police officers can never justifiably threaten your life, have fun explaining

The foyer is like a fortress, with giant steel doors and biometric identification systems...

Security like that for a business like theirs is just for show. It's there for all the "foreign dignitaries" with their big pocket books. Which makes me think of other elements of their corporate identity. These people market "non-lethal" weapons and then cover up the research that says that blasting tens of thousand of volts through the human nervous system might just have some negative effects. Not that there isn't a ton of historical evidence saying that when you science and law enforcement meet, a conspiracy usually results. Taser's products are not "non-lethal", they are "less lethal"... But the police and people who buy their equipment love to watch people scream and fall over because they smarted off to them, and for this, Taser Corporation delivers. And although their products could easily be designed to be more humanitarian, curiously these changes never make it to market.

Based on the following excerpt, from page 19 of the X26C operator's manual, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that "more humanitarian" would be seen as a defect. The last three lines are particularly... Suggestive.

"Page 19TASER® X26C Operating Manual

DRIVE-STUN BACKUPDrive-stun capability is available with or without a TASER Cartridge installed. The drive-stun mode will not cause NMI and generally becomes primarily a pain compliance option.Probe deployment is usually considered more desirable, even at close range. Some of theadvantages include:Drive-stun is only effective while the device is in contact with the subject or thesubject's clothing. As soon as the device is moved away, the energy efiect stops.Deploying the probes allows the user to create distance between the user and thesubject while maintaining control.Due to automatic reflex actions, most subjects will struggle to separate from theTASER device. When the TASER device is used in the drive-stun mode and the subjectstruggles to get away it may be difficult to maintain contact between the device andthe subject.If the probes are deployed, even at very close range, the user may be able to usedrive-stun to another portion of the body that is farther away from the probes,thereby resulting in enhanced NMI effect.If the drive-stun is not effective, evaluate the location of the drive-stun and consider anadditional cycle to a different pressure point.When using the drive-stun, push (drive) the front of the TASER X26C firmly against the bodyof the subject. Simply "touching" the X26C against the subject is not sufficient. The subjectis likely to recoil and try to get away from the stun electrodes. It is necessary to aggressivelydrive the front of the X26C into the subject for maximum efiect.The drive-stun works more effectively when aggressively applied to pressure points on nervebundles. This includes the brachial area, common peronial, mastoid, and pelvic triangle. TheTASER X26C must be actively depressed or aggressively driven into the nerve bundles in a"drive-stun" manner to be effective in the drive-stun mode.RECOMMENDED DRIVE-STUN AREAS FOR MAXIMUM EFFECTDrive the X26C into the following areas for maximum effectiveness.Carotid (sides of neck) (see warning below).Brachial plexus tie-in (upper chest).Radial (forearm).Pelvic triangle (see warning below).Common peronial (Outside of thigh).Tibial (calf muscle).WARNING: Use care when applying a drive-stun to the neck or pelvic triangle. These areasare sensitive to mechanical injury (such as crushing to the trachea or testicles if appliedforcefully). However, these areas have proven highly effective targets."

Security like that for a business like theirs is just for show. It's there for all the "foreign dignitaries" with their big pocket books.

For show or not, it really is a more-secure-than-average place. Until recently I worked for the company that cleans it and while I don't have (and wouldn't give) details I know I was told the security is closer to a bank than an office building.
The president of the company was also told that if he volunteered to be Tazed they would give him a free shirt. He passed.

Fists can be lethal, too. Fists might just have some negative effects.

Captain Obvious laughs at you. Strict rules are followed when using physical force, and officers only employ it when necessary, due to risk of "police brutality charges". Electrocuting someone for several minutes, however, escapes that kind of regulation.

I'm curious. What do you suggest police use? Here is your criteria:

No, you're not curious. You're a troll, and you made that list up.

So, what exists for a police to use that is capable of immobilizing a suspect (let's assume he's dangerous and he's running around a crowd of people and they need to immobilize him *now* to prevent harm to innocent bystanders). Guns work well, but that's significantly more lethal than a taser.

Guns have lots of policies governing their use, and most officers go their entire career without ever discharging their firearm in the line of duty. And it (rightly) scares the crap out of th

Yes, most people that get tasered are innocently standing there, hands in the air, asking how the weather is

Actually yes... All people getting tazed are innocent, and are only guilty after that strange thing called a jury decides it. Not all people arrested are guilty. And getting arrested while innocent, or doing something that is not a violent crime, is a pretty shocking moment of your life. You might even try to ask the police officer "what did I do", and when they tell you to shut up, you'll probably continue to ask, and plea, especially when you realize that your going to spend a night in jail. Hell, you might even struggle when the police shove your arms behind your back to "subdue" and cuff you... not because your criminal scum, but for the simple fact that your arms DON'T bend that way. Actually, it hurts, and 99.9% of humans would probably stuggle to get out of a painful situation.

I've been arrested twice, once wrongfully, and once for something incredibly minor (using a bathroom I wasn't supposed to use, ala trespassing). Both times I was not acting in a threatening manner, neither time did I back talk the police or throw insults at them, much less try to act violently towards them. And both times they used a rather uncomfortable amount of force, even though I was completely complying with their commands. In the case where I was actually guilty they decided the slam my head rather brutally into a bathroom wall, while twisting my arms around in very unnatural positions, before putting on cuffs so tight that my hands were purple, and my wrists bloody. Again, no resistance, and lots of "yes sir" on my behalf. In the case where I was wrongfull arrested (and got to spend fun 7-8 hours in jail), they refused to tell me what I was being arrested of the whole time. This obviously was somewhat stressful to me.

Imagine, some day your minding your own business, and have three police officers approach you, throw you on the ground, cuff you, and throw you in a car... but won't tell you why, or where your going. In fact they scream at you for even asking.

The people the police arrest have the exact same amount of rights as the police do. And police are just as big idiotic, mean, law breaking, assholes as the population as a whole. Police are just people too, putting on a badge does not make you some noble God of a man. Getting cuffed doesn't make you a criminal either. Not all police are jerks, but some are, in roughly the same proportion as the population as a whole.

The argument though is that police are more apt to discharge a taser than a firearm to begin with. That in situations where it would be deemed bad judgment and possibly a career-killing move to discharge a firearm on someone, the police are much more likely to discharge a taser. If tasers were a replacement for a pistol and treated as such when an incident was reviewed it would be one thing, but they get used in situations where before their advent an officer would not have fired at all.

If a person is unarmed and resisting arrest, an officer should clearly warn the person he/she will be forced to use a taser at least 3 times and that they are also under arrest and start reading their Miranda rights.

On the 3rd request and no compliance then... You had fair warning.

The problem most officers get into is that that they pull it out and use it right away without any good reason and haven't notified the person of their arrest ot

Their marketing is part of the problem. Because they are seen as "safe," officers are more likely to use them in situations where it is unnecessary. There are many viral videos where the police officer goes directly to the taser as soon as the person asks a question or protests in any way. (I would post them, but youtube is inaccessible from my work.) They are more likely to escalate a situation and use force because they believe the taser to be safe. For example, there was one incident a woman was tased in front of her kids after protesting an unjustified traffic ticket. The officer in question was about a foot taller and outweighed her by around 100 lbs, yet felt threated enough that using a weapon was justified even though the woman made no aggressive movement against him at all. Thankfully she didn't die, the ticket was dismissed and she is currently in the process of filing a lawsuit. (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/mom_in_minivan_tasered_in_traf.html)

Thankfully she didn't die, the ticket was dismissed and she is currently in the process of filing a lawsuit. (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/mom_in_minivan_tasered_in_traf.html)

The summary says "less lethal". Read The Fine Summary, please.

The real complaint seems to be not that Tasers are anywhere near as lethal as handguns, but that they are more likely to be abused due to the expectation of the users that a Taser won't cause serious injury or death.

It's not the size of the dog in the fight.It's the size of the fight in the dog.

Trust me on this.

I knew two female police officers, neither of which I would challenge, despite outweighing them. being significantly taller, more reach, and stronger by every objective measure. EVEN^H^H^H^HEspecially without their gun being handy. They do not need anything but their hands.

And one of them died when a drunk driver ran her over and then went back and beat her to death.

When I get pulled over, I put my hands on the dash, ask the officer what they want me to do, tell them what I am reaching for, where, and what it will look like. I want the officer to be confident they know what is happening. No surprises, nothing unexpected. I don't want to become a victim of bad judgement, knowing it will probably be my own mistake that sets off that series of events.

Drinking (not inhaling) clean water is typically considered non lethal too but people have died from that. You can't define anything as non lethal because there is a chance it could be come lethal under the proper circumstances. I am not defending the ways tasers are used (I disagree with some of the uses of tasers), it is just a fact.

Handcuffs could be lethal due to the positioning they cause aggravating an injury/other medical condition or causing a loss of circulation.

They have killed many times. Amnesty International says 351 people have been killed by tasers in police hands.

Which, on it's own, is a pretty useless number.
What percentage of taser uses does that 351 deaths represent? Go find some actual relevant stats to prove me wrong.
I don't have a real answer, but I'll bet it's down in the single digits.

Also, a +1 to the previous poster who pointed out that "bad cops" is a very small subset of "all cops"

I know this is offtopic (somewhat) so I won't mind if it's moderated out of usefulness, but I'll get on my soapbox at this point.

A taser should only ever be used as an alternative to shooting somebody. If you wouldn't shoot them in the same situation, you shouldn't taser them.

Resisting arrest alone should not mean tasering is on the table, even with a difficult struggle. Law enforcement is getting way to used to tasering simply to avoid any kind of physical confrontation.

If tasers didn't have the lethality question hanging over them I would think differently, but according to Amnesty International [www.cbc.ca], at least, 334 people died after taser shocks between 2001 and 2008.

In theory, your advice is sound. In reality, your advice is too expensive for the average citizen.

You have a beef with a ticket? Being arrested? Have your day in court.

People have had careers destroyed because they were "charged" but not convicted.

If he is wrong, it will be found out in a court of law.

And often times, a police officer is wrong, but it is not handled by the court.

Any time a suspect does not comply with the officers direction, it is a life or death situation.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that statement was made in frustration or anger. Certainly, every case where an officer does not get his wait (rightfully, or not) is not a life or death situation.
Officer: "You can

You know, my Dad is a retired police captain, and even he doesn't take that position.

Are you a very old man who grew up in the Third Reich? If so, I hope you'll learn correct usage of "lose," "outmanned," and "set up."

If you are supposedly an American, do yourself a favor and move to one of the many authoritarian or totalitarian regimes in the world where your position represents the "rule of law." You'll be happier and we'll be happier.

You make a number of point, but no attempt to link them to each other.

Before tasers, an officer wasn't allowed to just knock a suspect out with a nightstick if he was worried he'd try and run. How is using a Taser different? Both are incapacitating, and both carry a risk of fatal injury.

You have a beef with a ticket? Being arrested? Have your day in court. Sue afterward for unlawful prosecution. Knock yourself out.

No where in the constitution does it give you the right impede the police officers duty. If he is wrong, it will be found out in a court of law.

I don't understand the relevance of this point, unless you're trying to imply that people who dislike indiscriminate use of tasers are dislike it because it makes it harder for them to kill cops at traffic stops.

Any time a suspect does not comply with the officers direction, it is a life or death situation. Period.

Saying "Period." after a sentence seems to be some sort of shorthand for "please don't question that bit; it's a little shaky". If an unarmed shoplifter is running from police, and is asked to stop, and doesn't, why is it life or death situation? Should he be tasered (which, after all, carries the risk of fatal complications)? If this had happened before the use of tasers, should he have been shot?

Way off Politically Correct here (and I'm not saying we shouldn't have women or asian police officers), but it has been observed that use of tasers went way up in step with the hiring of women and some minorities. The stereotypical 6'2" 240 lb Irish beat cop has more "intimidation factor" going for him than a 5' 4" 140 lb woman or Asian guy.

Let's see other stats, too. How many of those people were armed? How many people died from police guns? How many times was the taser used? A random stat from an opponent of tasers is not going to help anything, probably, more than a random stat from an advocate of tasers...

If verifiable, it certainly reveals claims of non-lethality to be false. Then we can look at more detailed figures. A more interesting one would be how many of those deaths were in cases where use of a gun wouldn't have been sanctioned.

A taser should only ever be used as an alternative to shooting somebody. If you wouldn't shoot them in the same situation, you shouldn't taser them.

While I agree with your other points - tasers shouldn't be used for compliance, or for suppressing civil disobedience - I disagree here... If shooting someone is justified - they are posing an imminent and deadly threat to the officer or someone else - then shoot them. You wouldn't pepper spray them in that situation, you shouldn't tase them either.

"If shooting someone is justified - they are posing an imminent and deadly threat to the officer or someone else - then shoot them.

I would say that if it's possible, taser them instead. However, tasers are inherently a short-range device, so their usefulness is quite limited. A taser should be a short-range and situational alternative to shooting. I do, however, believe in using lethal force if justified.

I understand the less lethal part, but doesn't anyone see the inherent danger of hurling electrified needles into the air. It could poke your eye out then send a electric charge right to the head. Into your mouth if your screaming or yelling. The jugular vein is basically unprotected and a unlucky shot there could puncture it. On another note, wonder if their testing includes a person wearing different types of clothing for like summer and winter. Also if the voltage needed to subdue someone fluctuates

This foyer may look like the entrance to the Control headquarters from an episode of Get Smart, but this is the front door of the Taser plant. The corporation has plenty of reasons for high security. It recently launched an online warehouse for digital evidence, so keeping trespassers out is a top priority.

Looking at the image [wired.com], my impression is that this is more about appearances than real security. It's all about looking high-tech and security oriented.

Most/. readers USED TO BE Wired readers, back in the 90's when it was relevant, interesting, and had actual production value (of a sort).
Now it's just geek playboy. A couple interesting articles, 60 pages of glossy shwag for sale, and a desperate sense of self-promotion.
Well, maybe it hasn't changed THAT much... maybe my gadget pr0n tastes have evolved. Either way, leave it on Digg.

A dozen years ago, perhaps. They had *it* once, and lost it. Which is not to say they are not making money by the bushelful. "Wired" is to technology as "Men's Fitness" is to exercise and nutrition. But I still pine for Mondo 2000 [wikipedia.org], so maybe I'm not the right person to pass judgment...

People die in car crashes daily and regularly (one cite I saw said 115), but at best they're mentioned on traffic reports. "Fatal car accident on I-5, traffic backed up for miles..." You'll never hear about those outside of the local area unless someone famous is involved.

But a plane crash that results in fatailites gets reported nationwide for a good week.

The more statistically improbable a fatal incident is, the more probable it will be reported on.

In 1930s USA we had "beat cops" that would walk through neighborhoods in cities. Their very presence deterred crime. Should someone be as unwise as to steal an apple from a box outside a market, they would often be chased down and caught by the beat cop. At least that was the idea.

The beat cop did indeed have a tough life being on their feet for their entire shift and being only lightly armed, generally a club and a small revolver. Criminals of the day would often h